In re Randall's Island Family Golf Centers, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 March 2003 |
| Docket Number | Bankruptcy No. 00-41141(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41196(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41154(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41134(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41192(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41155(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41074(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41090(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41100(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41126(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41145(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41070(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41103(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41168(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41157(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41105(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41112(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41123(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41172(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41107(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41079(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41124(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41084(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41125(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41066(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41187(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41147(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41086(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41113(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41119(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41166(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41127(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41174(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41110(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41177(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41080(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41176(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41163(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41135(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41162(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41087(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41073(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41153(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41116(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41131(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41181(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41146(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41130(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41143(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41185(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41142(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41109(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41078(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41097(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41164(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41193(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41160(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41108(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41121(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41076(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41072(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41152(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41190(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41148(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41188(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41104(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41186(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41150(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41092(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41083(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41179(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41095(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41082(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41128(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41132(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41081(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41098(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41194(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41068(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41071(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41085(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41184(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41175(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41099(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41120(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41101(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41137(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41173(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41169(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41195(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41136(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41159(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41158(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41138(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41091(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41117(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41149(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41115(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41140(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41165(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41088(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41065(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41094(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41096(SMB).,Adversary No. 02-3147.,Bankruptcy No. 00-41129(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41182(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41118(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41180(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41122(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41151(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41189(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41183(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41077(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41067(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41178(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41114(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41093(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41170(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41171(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41075(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41089(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41106(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41167(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41139(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41191(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41144(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41156(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41133(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41161(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41111(SMB).,Bankruptcy No. 00-41069(SMB). |
| Citation | 290 B.R. 55 |
| Parties | In re RANDALL'S ISLAND FAMILY GOLF CENTERS, INC., et al., Debtors. Family Golf Centers, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Acushnet Company and Fortune Brands, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York |
Jonathan L. Flaxer, Jacqueline G. Veit, Sydney R. Smith, Golenbock, Eiseman, Assor, Bell & Peskoe, New York City, for Plaintiff.
Robert D. Goldstein, Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., New York City, for Defendants.
On February 3, 2003, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss this adversary proceeding on statute of limitations grounds. See Family Golf Ctrs., Inc. v. Acushnet Co. (In re Randall's Island Family Golf Ctrs., Inc.), 288 B.R. 701 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2003) (the "Opinion"). The defendants, Acushnet Company ("Acushnet") and Fortune Brands, Inc. ("Fortune Brands"), have now moved pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), made applicable to this adversary proceeding by FED. R. BANKR. P. 9023, to alter or amend the Opinion.
As discussed below, their motion is mostly directed at an earlier decision dismissing a different complaint in another adversary proceeding. Treating the application as a motion for reargument under the Court's local rules, I will grant the motion, but upon reargument, adhere to my decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss.
To a great extent the defendants' motion reinvents the arguments made in two prior motions. It is, therefore, necessary to review the prior proceedings in some detail.
The debtors filed their original complaint (the "Complaint") in adversary proceeding no. 02-2278 (the "First Action") on or about April 29, 2002, only four days before the expiration of the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs included all of the debtors,1 (Complaint ¶ 4), but the only debtor specifically named in the caption was "Randall's Island Family Golf Centers, Inc." followed by the catch-all "et al." The Complaint spanned nearly ninety pages and asserted claims against approximately eighty defendants, but only the first five pages pertained to Acushnet and Fortune Brands.
The debtors' theory of the case, as alleged in the Complaint, was straightforward. The debtors maintained a cash management system under which all of the debtors submitted their invoices to one of the debtors, Family Golf Centers, Inc. ("Family Golf"), Family Golf paid the invoices, and the other debtors reimbursed Family Golf for the payments made on their behalf. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.) According to the Complaint, the "Debtors" (through Family Golf) paid Acushnet and Fortune Brands the aggregate sum of $584,601.97 during the ninety days before the bankruptcy petition date. (Id. ¶ 12.) The transfers were made for the benefit of Acushnet and Fortune Brands who were creditors of the "Debtors," (id. ¶ 13), on account of antecedent debts owed by the "Debtors." (Id. ¶ 14.) Consequently, the "Debtors" were entitled to recover the total amount from Acushnet and Fortune Brands. (Id. ¶ 18.)
On June 12, 2002, Acushnet and Fortune Brands moved to dismiss the Complaint, or in the alternative, for a more definite statement (the "First Motion to Dismiss"). The motion made four arguments. Three revolved around the Complaint's failure to distinguish among the 130 debtors or the different transfers. Specifically, Acushnet and Fortune Brands maintained that the Complaint failed (1) to list all of the debtor-plaintiffs in the caption as mandated by FED. R. CIV. P. 10(a), (Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion of Defendants Acushnet Company and Fortune Brands, Inc. to Dismiss Complaint, dated June 4, 2002 ("First Dismissal Memorandum"), at 2-3), (2) to distinguish between actions taken by one or more of the debtor-plaintiffs as required under FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a), (First Dismissal Memorandum 3), and (3) to plead each transfer as a separate count in accordance with FED. R. CIV. P. 10(b). (First Dismissal Memorandum 6.)
The First Motion to Dismiss also argued that the Complaint violated FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a) by lumping claims against eighty different defendants arising from different transactions or occurrences in a single Complaint. (First Dismissal Memorandum 7.) In other words, even if the claims against Acushnet and Fortune Brands were properly alleged, they should not have been included in a single pleading with the other defendants.
As the Opinion explained in more detail, I granted the motion from the bench, essentially adopting the last argument. The dismissal was without prejudice, but I directed the "Debtors" to file a separate proceeding in the event they intended to renew the claims. (Opinion at 703.) I did not rule on the other three grounds raised by the defendants, and it was unnecessary to do so. Acushnet and Fortune Brands were severed from the offending pleading, and the Complaint was a nullity as to them. If one or more debtors filed a new pleading, and if the new pleading suffered from the same deficiencies as the Complaint, those issues could be addressed at that time.
Family Golf filed the pending adversary proceeding (the "Second Action") on or about October 1, 2002, approximately five days after the entry of the order dismissing the Complaint as against Acushnet and Fortune Brands. The Complaint dated Sept. 30, 2002 (the "Second Complaint") eliminated the pleading and other deficiencies addressed by Acushnet and Fortune Brands in the First Motion to Dismiss. Family Golf, now the only plaintiff, was listed in the caption. No claims were asserted by any other debtor or against any other defendant. Although the Second Complaint still consisted of only one cause of action asserting numerous payments, the actual payments were set forth in an attached schedule. Finally, the Second Complaint alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re NJ Affordable Homes Corp.
...Grp., Inc.), 2004 Bankr. LEXIS 270 (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 9, 2004); see also Family Golf Ctrs., Inc. v. Acushnet Co.(In re Randall's Island Family Golf Ctrs., Inc.), 290 B.R. 55, 65 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003). The pleading of preference actions is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, ma......
-
In re Nm Holdings Co., LLC
...03-543 75(CGC), 2004 WL 483580 (Bankr.D.Del. March 9, 2004); and Family Golf Centers, Inc. v. Acushnet Company and Fortune Brands, Inc. (In re Randall's Island Family Golf Centers, Inc.), 290 B.R. 55 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.2003). In these cases, the courts declined to follow Valley The "Corporate ......
-
In re Del-Met Corp.
...Group, Inc.), Adv. Pro. No. 03-54365, 2004 WL 483580 (Bankr.D.Del. Mar.9, 2004); Family Golf Ctrs., Inc. v. Acushnet Co. (In re Randall's Island Family Golf Ctrs., Inc.), 290 B.R. 55 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2003). Some courts have observed that a fraudulent conveyance action involves fraud for purpo......
-
In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. Llc
...payments are not held to the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). See Family Golf Ctrs., Inc. v. Acushnet Co. (In re Randall's Island Family Golf Ctrs.), 290 B.R. 55, 64 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2003). Accordingly, under Rule 8(a), the Trustee must provide only a “short and plain statement ......